Smoking, when it comes down to it
potheadpl
Florida
Smokers in a non-smoking business are simply required to venture outside to engage in their habit. Someone NOT smoking doesn't impact the comfort or health of a smoker.
My eyes are red, my throat burns, and my clothes REEK after I leave the strip club. Granted, my eyes are usually red when I enter(pot does that).
Smoking bans WILL be enacted nationwide, eventually. Is venturing outside to smoke such a hassle?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
44 comments
Latest
A good place to post a lesson in Economics 101. Were there a demand for a non-smoking versus a smoking business, they would be prevalent. They are not. End of lesson.
GMD---the smoker IS forced to endure the smoke, if he wants to see and enjoy naked women. Or go to a nightclub, or a pub.
Samsung--the smoking ban is not going to be targeted at strip clubs. It's going to be a blanket law stating no smoking indoors. Period. Saying the next step will be six foot laws is a bit of a stretch, IMHO.
Smokers intrude upon non-smokers when they smoke. Period.
To smokers who don't think smoking odors are intrusive: Would you enjoy sitting next to someone who farted a lot because they enjoyed the pleasure of eating a lot of spicy Mexican food?
You are in desperate need of an economic education. Using a sample of one to try and prove a point is idiotic.
For your enlightenment, I recommend for beginners, " Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity " by James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Dwight R. Lee.
My position was, "what's the problem? 27/32 already smoke free." The potential adverse effects of 2nd hand smoke on employees' health was the item that tipped the scales in this case. After months of debate, we crafted an indoor smoking ban that contained some effective date delays for certain classes of (smoking)establishments so they could adjust their marketing and business model. It was a good compromise which passed unanimously, but ultimately left the convenience of "choice" by owner or patron out of the formula.
I had to recognize that the overall well-being of the community in this health-related issue outweighed the convenience of choice. Many portray the indoor smoking ban as a "quality of life" issue, and I don't really disagree with that. Discussions with scores of my constituents revealed that a majority of them favored a ban without complicated signs on the door that caused them to have to make a decision.
Chances are great that the state will upgrade its clean indoor air act within the next few years. They need to focus on that now, and ignore any bills that contain the phrases "shall not touch" or "stay 6 feet away from"...unless they're talking about open fires.
As a non-smoker I wish all smoking everywhere would end; the population would be healthier for it!
" A smoking ban (either state, county, or local) has been enacted covering all bars and restaurants in each of the 60 most populated cities in the United States except these 16: Arlington, Atlanta, Fort Worth, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Memphis, Miami, Las Vegas, Nashville, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Antonio, Tampa, Tulsa, and Virginia Beach.[3][4]"
People don't go to strip clubs to smoke. If the option to smoke is removed, people WILL STILL GO TO LOOK AT AND GROPE YOUNG NAKED SLUTS. Unless they're gay, that is. But, there is an oral fixation involved in smoking(the cigarette/cigar representing the smoker's desire for cock), so maybe I'm on the right track there.....
Encroachment on your liberties? No. You have no "right to smoke". However, I have a right to clean air.
Some of the nicest people I know are complete idiots when they light up. They have no ability to control their addiction to cigs, too weak minded to be able to fight nicotine. They are unable to understand basic politeness like don't blow your smoke in my face. They don't care that I don't want my clothing to smell like their breath. They dump their ashtrays in the parking lot or at the stop sign. They don't care what the effects of their pollution is.
I can't feel sorry for or make a case for smokers. Smokers just haven't earned it. Quite frankly, they have brought all the wrath on themselves. Smokers are reeping what they have sowed.
And it pisses me off. I enjoy a cigar once a month or so. Enjoying a cigar with a nice scotch is even better. Enjoying a cigar, a nice scotch and nakid women is the best! Too bad that all ended May 1st in Michigan because the 20% who smoke just couldn't do so in a why that recognized the rights of the remaining 80%.
Seriously, what did smokers expect?
You do have a right to clean air. Lets force all automobiles, factories and other polluters to shut down, go away and die. You know what else is bad for the public...strip clubs. They degrade the morals of non-stripclubbers. We should get rid of them too. Also, fast food joints...lets get rid of them. What else is bad for us and others around us? Lets get rid of that too!!!
You may say that I'm be rediculous but lets just look at how the goverment is forcing us to do things "for our own good". You may agree with some of the issues but what will you do when they come after something you like and don't agree with everyone else on? Who will you complain to then?
This is supposed to be a free country. If I as a buisiness owner want to allow somking I should be allowed to. If you as a non-smoker would like to open up competition that is non-smoking..go for it. By your logic, you should blow me away with all of your profits. Then you will succeed...your non-smoking customers and employees will have a nice clean-air place to hang out/work...
and leave the rest of us alone to live our lives the way we wish to!!!
Jesus...this world would be so much better if everyone would just mind their business!
You mean like the non-smokers who try to force private property owners to provide them with an environment to their liking, whether those property owners want to or not?
pothead, you don't have a right to enter private property without permission, nor do you have the right to look at naked women (unless you *are* a woman, with access to a mirror) without their permission,, so I'm more than a little confused as to how you can be claiming to be forced to enter. Was someone holding a gun to your head and making you enter this private property?
Despite your claim to the contrary, he *does* have a right to smoke, as long as the owner of the private property in question has given his or her permission.
txtittyfan, well then, you should have no problem with smoking in strip clubs, since the vast majority of them are private property, not public.
You continue to show your ignorance. This truly isn't a smoking/non-smoking issue. You state, "You have no "right to smoke". However, I have a right to clean air." You are correct that I have no "right" to smoke (I don't smoke!), but you have no "right" to clean air. "Rights" we have are few if you read our Constitution. What we do have are liberties and a government slowly eroding our liberties, not "rights". If you are to blind to see this encroachment, I pity you, because someday they will take away some liberty from YOU!
Nobody on this list would argue that a property owner has the right to decide to provide his customers with a smoke free environment, even if some, or even a majority, of those customers objected. We would all, rightly, claim something on the order of, "it's his property, he can do what he wants.". But when the situation is reversed, and the property owner wants to provide his customers with a smoking environment, he's suddenly bereft of his rights.
How is it any different (if not worse, which I believe) than explicit sex in movies? It has been argued (I guess) that allowing minors to watch scenes of explicit sex/simulated sex is harmful to them (maybe their development?). Because of that, it has been regulated that kids under a certain age can't go see a Rated R movie alone. Seems like another argument about encroaching on our liberties. Let the kid go see whatever he wants right? His parents should restrict him, not regulations.
We had the liberty to smoke or not smoke. It is NOT a right. Also, we do NOT have the liberty to impose our wishes on others. As for you "property" point, you are correct.
uscue13,
I am not discussing the pros or cons of smoking, but rather, as you mention, governments encroachment. We, as free people have (or at least did have) liberty protected by our Constitution. Those liberties are being voided daily.
I suppose you agree with the government telling what to eat, what to see, that you must buy health insurance, and the list goes on and on and on...
Remember, I don't smoke, so I don't have a dog in this fight.
You are bitching, in my opinion.
I don't work in them, but I do visit, even if smoking is allowed, by CHOICE!
I got kicked out of titty bar for smoking. Nah, that shit was ridicioulous. It's the stripper did it. She came up like "cough" your smoking is a health risk for me, I don't want ot work in this kind of environment.
Bitch you had your gonorrhea infested pussy in my face, you started it. That's the dirtiest place I have been thrown out of...and by dirty what I mean is lap dances were $3...of course I did it, it was like a sale!
-Dave Chappelle - Titty Bar and His Kids
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG-dfV90d…
Um, because it's a BAR? A bar where alcohol is served should be a place where you can smoke. There are so many stupid smoking bans that bars are really the only sanctum for a smoker anymore. The way it should be.
Did you not read the word "choice?" A non-smoking stripper, like I was, chooses to work in a smoke-filled room. She is not being forced to work there. She is not being forced to even enter the bar. It is her CHOICE.
You are not being forced to enter a stripclub. It is your CHOICE. BTW, you have some nerve bitching about this when pot reeks a helluva lot worse than cigarette smoke. I should start screaming about you smoking pot.
You want a non-smoking naked girl experience? Rent a hooker and take her back to your sanctimonious, cigarette-free hovel. Christ.
Absent any context, you are correct. Nobody has an *absolute* right to do much of anything, except breath and, perhaps, catch/gather his or her own food. Even the latter is subject to respecting others' property rights.
However, with certain contexts, you do indeed have the right to smoke. For instance, on your property. In other situations, for instance, on someone else's property, you might not have the right, but instead just have permission, which might be revoked at any time.
uscue13: "How is the government encroaching on liberties?"
By violating the property owner's right to manage his property as he sees fit. Since allowing smoking one one's own property doesn't violate anyone else's rights, unless s/he commits some kind of fraud by *claiming* to provide a non-smoking environment, and then not doing it (since no one but the owner has a *right* to be there), then the government has no business interfering.
pothead: "And just why should smoking be allowed in a bar?"
Not the proper question. The proper one is "what gives anyone but the property owner the right to control his business?" Unless that property owner has violated someone's rights, the answer is "nothing." And just for the record, failing to provide you (as either a willing customer *or* a willing employee) with the environment you want does *not* violate your rights, regardless of how much you desire that to be true. Now, if he was dragging you in off the street and forcing you to spend money, or forcing the employees to work there, you might have a point. But there are other laws already in place to deal with that. We don't need more.
txtitty: "why don't they smoke in church, school and hospitals?"
Well, in the case of schools (as long as you are talking the public kind), it's because they are publicly owned, and as such, the owners, i.e. the public *do* have a right to enter and be smoke free, if they want. As for churches and hospitals (absent issues of public ownership), as far as I'm concerned, they fall under the same principle as bars. If the owner wants to allow it, he can. If he doesn't, he doesn't have to, and the government has no business interfering either way.
The only right you have with regard to someone else's property is the right to leave when you want. And if you contract that one away (which is virtually impossible in our society), then you're SOL there as well.
One quick note. When I reference liberties and rights, I defer to the United States Constitution!
Just so we're clear, the Constitution does *not* grant any of us any rights. It protects the rights we already have by virtue of simply being alive. That whole "endowed by their creator" thing in the Declaration. Note that everywhere the Constitution addresses the issue, it uses language such as "the right of the people [...] shall not be infringed," acknowledging the fact that the rights preceded the government, and will survive it, even if they are routinely violated.
The only things the government can do with regard to rights are protect them or violate them. They used to do more of the former, now sadly, they're doing more of the latter.
Amen!
As for your other idiotic point, when I smoke pot IN PUBLIC I'll agree. But I do it in my own home or in my car in a parking lot. WTF are you talking about?
The pro-smoking lobby wants to whine about "liberties" and "rights" but when the voters voice THEIR opinions, smoking bans pass overwhelmingly. Then the pro-smokers complaing that they're being oppressed. So, they want to be free to force their behavior on others(and regardless of opinion, some people are forced THROUGH THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES to work in smoke-filled environments), but get upset when voters use the law to empower theirs. Funny, that.
No, but starting another whole thread on this issue wasn't really necessary though.
------------------------
"Were there a demand for a non-smoking versus a smoking business, they would be prevalent. They are not. End of lesson."
LOL...ahhhhhh, the all-mighty, invisible hand of the "market" that those on the far Right would like to leave our entire society in the trusting hands of...no thanx!
-------------------------
"Afaik, CA & OH are 2 states that have indoor smoking bans."
As of May 2010, 26 states have enacted statewide bans on smoking in all enclosed public places, including bars and restaurants...AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, IA, KS, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MT, NB, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OR, RI, UT, VT, WA, and WI.
States that exempt cigar bars...CA, CO, CT, MA, MI, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, and WI.
States that exempt so-called "private clubs"...AZ, CT, IA, KS, MA, NY, and OH.
States that exempt casinos...CT, IA, KS, ME, MI, NJ, NM, RI, and WI.
States that exempt small workplaces...OH (only if "family owned & operated").
As of May 2010, 7 states ban smoking in most enclosed public places, but permit adult venues such as bars (and casinos, if applicable) to allow smoking if they choose...AK, FL, LA, NV, PA, ND, and TN.
In DC & Puerto Rico, smoking is banned in all enclosed public places, including bars & restaurants. Guam prohibits smoking in restaurants only.
--------------------------
"For your enlightenment, I recommend for beginners, 'Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Prosperity' by James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, and Dwight R. Lee"
...who are three hard-Rightwingers, period end of story.
------------------------------------------------------------
"This is supposed to be a free country"
...and it still is...no one is out to ban smoking altogether, period.
----------------------------------
"you should have no problem with smoking in strip clubs, since the vast majority of them are private property, not public."
As per usual, you guys are completely missing the point. These establishments *are* public places because the general public frequents them, NOT because they are "owned" by the government!
----------------------------------------------
"It seems to me, second-hand smoke has been proven to cause health problems. Therefore it is starting to be regulated where you can not smoke in *public* places."
Exactly.
--------------------
"I am not discussing the pros or cons of smoking"
...because you know that you'd LOSE that argument, period.
"Remember, I don't smoke, so I don't have a dog in this fight."
Of course you do you moron! Your "dog in this fight" is your radical Right-wing, the free market-is-right-at-all-costs political belief, period end of story!
-----------------------------
"A bar where alcohol is served should be a place where you can smoke."
Why?? A bar where alcohol is served, period.
"I should start screaming about you smoking pot"
...which is a form of smoking, which would be banned under any anti-smoking law...whether smoking pot was legal or not in the first place.
--------------------
"By violating the property owner's right to manage his property as he sees fit."
Jesus man...you just basically finished saying that no rights are absolute (which is correct), and this statement makes NO sense given that fact.
"As for churches and hospitals (absent issues of public ownership), as far as I'm concerned, they fall under the same principle as bars. If the owner wants to allow it, he can."
Ahhhhh...smoking in hospitals...sounds really "healthy" to me...not...ugh...
As to your argument about private property:
Anyone who owns property NOT open to the public can set the rules for that property. The owner can say who enters and who doesn't and can even base it on such things as race, sex, religion, age. I can serve alcohol if I want. I can ask strippers who are only less than 30 and white to come in. I can allow smoking.
Anyone who opens his/her property to the public, e.g. bars, hotels, strip clubs, can and are told by the government if they can or can't sell alcohol. They can be and are told how many people they can allow in at one time (Fire Code). They can be and are told if they can or can't serve alcohol. Strip clubs are told that they can't hire only girls under 30 and white. They can also be told whether or not they can allow smoking.
YAWN!!
>@Fetish Dancer----your point makes no sense. There is no reason why someone who wants to enjoy a cold beer in a bar should have to be subjected to cigarette smoke. The two activities are not linked. Smoking rates are at 25% or less, while more people than that drink.<
Drinking is unhealthy. So is smoking. You're here yelling against smokers, but you haven't said a word about alcohol. Be fair, here.
>As for your other idiotic point, when I smoke pot IN PUBLIC I'll agree. But I do it in my own home or in my car in a parking lot. WTF are you talking about?<
The smell. How dare you be forced to inhale cigarette smoke, but you're still willing to breathe in pot-laden air from blunts. The comment about the smell was off-topic. You have no argument here. You smoke pot, which goes to your lungs, and then you bitch and moan about cigarette smoke, which also goes to your lungs. And don't tell me pot doesn't affect your lungs, either. Any kind of smoke hurts your body.
>The pro-smoking lobby wants to whine about "liberties" and "rights" but when the voters voice THEIR opinions, smoking bans pass overwhelmingly. Then the pro-smokers complaing that they're being oppressed. So, they want to be free to force their behavior on others(and regardless of opinion, some people are forced THROUGH THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES to work in smoke-filled environments), but get upset when voters use the law to empower theirs. Funny, that.>
It still stands. It's a fucking bar. People smoke in bars. They're being banned from pretty much everywhere else, so they have bars. You and people like you attempting to encroach on the bar scene and take that away is wrong.
The three or four tokes I take off of my pipe pale in comparison to sitting in a smoky SC for three hours. And the cigarette SMELL that clings to my clothes afterwards is sickening. I don't smoke "blunts". I'm not ghetto. I'm a white guy. Pipe or vaporizer, sweetheart.
Smoking WILL eventually be banned indoors everywhere. It's simple. If I'm sitting in a room not smoking, it doesn't affect anyone else. If someone smokes, it affects EVERYONE else.
Actually, he's correct about the U.S. Constitution. Our rights as human beings come from nowhere, therefore they can never truly be taken away. We have rights because we are human beings, period.
"The owner can say who enters and who doesn't and can even base it on such things as race, sex, religion, age."
Not in this day & age I bet.
----------------------------------
"It's a fucking bar. People smoke in bars."
Not all people.